1. 12
  1.  

  2. [Comment removed by author]

    1. 2

      You’re basically describing the street performer protocol.

    2. 2

      Mike Perham just released Sidekiq Pro which implements a novel licensing method similar to this. When you buy a license you get a custom git URL for your Gemfile. When the license expires your URL goes dead, you lose future upgrades, and your Gemfile is broken.

      1. 2

        The Premium Branch Manifesto makes sense in the context of a programmer who wants to do open source work in a capitalist environment. I don’t really like it, but I dislike pretty much every other option as well that does not involve destroying capitalism (for example, have a patron or get kept as a serf or starve or just don’t do large amounts of open source or be somehow independently wealthy or work a day job as well or make some money, but see corporations and startups making a lot more off of your work in an extractive manner that ultimately destroys the open source environment they depend on).

        1. 1

          I’m not sure I understand what you’re complaining about. You expect to be compensated for releasing open code with no strings attached?

          1. 2

            It should be more along the lines of, if they profit off of something you’re doing, and want you do fix a bug, or add a feature, then… why don’t they pay you for that? If they don’t and just file an issue for it or something, there is an expectation of free labor. It’s fine to create and not expect compensation when you are creating something on your own terms, I do that a lot to support progress for all people, but if anybody interjects with something they want and will profit from it… then that should come at a cost.

            1. [Comment removed by author]

              1. 1

                I agree. I don’t think that’s their argument either. Let’s call it a brand new argument! :)

                What happens when people don’t want to contribute, but somebody really wants it? They might hire somebody to write it. If they want the original or maintaining author to do it… is there a precedent to how that might be done? Is that useful? Could that also offset the crux of his argument?

                1. [Comment removed by author]

                  1. [Comment removed by author]

                    1. [Comment removed by author]

            2. 1

              Did you even read my comment?

              I want to work on open source. There are several ways to do that at present without starving, in the currently existing world. I hate all of those options, though I hate them all in different amounts and for different reasons. The Premium Branch Manifesto is a new option, which I do not like, though I dislike it less than most of the options I listed above.

              I dislike it for many of the same reasons I dislike ‘open core’ or ‘copyright assignment/proprietary mix’ type strategies, though it is an interesting new twist which makes this sort of thing viable for those of us that are not megacorps. There are also a bunch of ways that people could use it in practice, and I think that it may be able to be used in a way that avoids some of the really problematic parts of the ‘open core’ and ‘copyright assignment/proprietary mix’ strategies.

              1. 1

                Did you even read my comment?

                Yup

                I read this one too, and still don’t understand what compensation option that could exist that you wouldn’t hate.

                Also, I don’t see Premium Branch Manifesto as being a new option method at all, it’s just proposing new tooling for Github, etc to make what many people are already doing easier.

                1. 2

                  Ah, I thought it was fairly obvious. What I would like is the destruction of capitalism, and the creation of some new world where the problems of capitalism do not exist (and are not replaced by equivalent or worse problems). That isn’t an option in the currently existing world though, so I am left with options I have varying degrees of dislike for.

                  The Premium Branch Manifesto is a combination of tooling and expectations that has not before now made a big enough impression for there to be a pre-existing word for it, or a pre-existing conversation or set of norms around it in the open source software world. That seems to me to qualify it as a ‘new option’. And as a note, it isn’t just the tooling, it is the tooling + the expectations that make it ‘new’.

          2. [Comment removed by author]

            1. 2

              I think it was more a lack of recognition for mongrel, which led to not getting the jobs he felt (probably rightly so) he was entitled to get. For context, that was when the rails hypetrain was in full force, and people with terrible ideas (and even worse devs) could get funding by saying they were using rails as their platform.

              1. [Comment removed by author]

                1. 10

                  It’s probably because you weren’t there at the time.

                  Old Rails people have this joke, back in the old days, only Ezra and David knew how to deploy a Rails app. Mongrel was a huuuuge step forward, and let Rails really take off by providing a consistent, easy way to deploy apps. And then, most of the community shit on him.

                  By now I’m sure many people have moved on from Mongrel anyway (Unicorn?)

                  Essentially every web server after Mongrel uses Mongrel’s HTTP parser, because it’s super badass. Even non-Ruby servers take advantage of it. Even the newest, bleeding edge server (http://puma.io/) was originally just a fork of mongrel.

                  Commits: https://github.com/puma/puma/commits/master?page=11 specifically, https://github.com/puma/puma/commit/190a81c55a1cbf215658b8fd6bb7ce2a0326b6c6

                  1. 1

                    | most of the community shit on him

                    I don’t remember this happening. I thought he only had issues with a few people before the ‘Ghetto essay.

                  2. 1

                    The OS, filesystem, and C libraries are not very ‘close’ to what a web startup is doing – you would expect people working on that stuff to be employed by other kinds of companies (router makers, infrastructure companies, toolmakers, hpc companies etc). Code editor writers you would expect to find work in tool making or ‘software’ shops. The front-facing web server and Rails plugin writers are the ones who you would expect to get jobs at web startups, and as I understand it lots of them do find work in web startups or in ‘software’ shops in the related ecosystem (I only have anecdata for this, though).

                    As far as items on your CV go, having written a crucial piece of infrastructure proves both that you can code and that you have significant project management and product development skills. If the stuff you have written is well documented, you have demonstrated technical writing skills. If the infrastructure is ‘close’ to the startup’s ‘area’, you have demonstrated that you can do pretty much everything that they need a programmer to be able to do and then some. So, if there is any trace of employment on merit in the web section of the programming world you would expect job offers to be flowing in pretty much constantly. Does that make sense?

              2. 1

                I suggested to him a matter of compromise where these branches could be ‘bought-out’ or maybe after accumulating enough ‘royalties’ they go public and open with whatever license the author chooses. I like these types of compromises since it can ensure that at the end of the day, progress goes toward helping all people. He ignored me, unsurprisingly. :D